For decades and decades I've been submitting my artwork to the Washington, DC ART BANK call for art to add to the city's collection -- for many of those years I've also served as one of the jurors in the panel which recommends acquisitions to the DC Commission on the Arts & Humanities.
I've always been rejected - which as I preach, all artists must learn as part of their growth process. Art is subjective, and thus what juror A may like, Juror B dislikes and so on.
As all three of my entries (subjects were Celia Cruz, Frida Kahlo and Bob Marley) I took them to the last Affordable Art Fair in New York City, where I sold them all!
I always ask for feedback and here's the feedback to my recent submissions, which consisted of the aforementioned three Bisque drawings.
FY25 Art Bank Program
Debrief Document
Panel Date: 7-23-2024
Applicant: Florencio Lennox Campello
CAH Staff:
· Karyn Miller, Public Art Department Manager | Panel Convener
· Michelle May-Curry, Curator | Art Bank Grant Manager
· Ron Humbertson, Art Collections Registrar | Panel Support
· Deirdre Darden, Public Art Coordinator | Panel Support
· vEnessa Acham, Program Specialist | Panel Support
· Luisa Hammond, Assistant Registrar | Panel Support
· Maya Lee, Public Art Intern | Panel Support
Review Panelists:
· Nancy Geyer, ARTerrain
· Lenora Yerkes, Artist
· Sarah Hull, Artist, DC Arts Center Visual Arts Committee member
· Ashley Molese, Maryland Institute Collage of Art, curator
· Minami Hoffman, Artist and Coordinator, Life Pieces to Masterpieces
Program Overview:
In support of local visual artists, District art galleries, and District art nonprofit organizations, CAH acquires fine art from metropolitan artists to grow the Art Bank Collection. Artwork in the collection is owned by CAH and loaned to District Government agencies for display in public areas and offices of government buildings. The Art Bank Collection, which started in 1986, has over 3,000 artworks.
The review panel was comprised of arts, humanities, and business professionals independent of CAH. Prior to meeting for the review session, panelists had time to review all applications and provide numerical scores. Evaluation criteria include aesthetic and conceptual strength (50%); artistic contribution (20%); and value as a cultural asset to DC’s artistic community (30%). Scoring ranges from 1 to 10, with under 3 being poor, 3 and 4 average, 5 and 6 good, 7 and 8 excellent, and 9 and 10 superior. Works scoring at 7 or above were considered for finalist selection.
Panel Score: 6.5
Panelist Comments:
· Panelist comment: “Unique combination of techniques and material.”
· Panelist comment: “Intrigued with process of reclamation.”
· Panelist stated the drawings overall appear technically well-executed.
· Panelist comment on subject matter: “Drawings feel like they are copied from photographs or like they are a repurposing of another artist’s works, but not intentionally original enough.”
· Panelist expressed the concept and subject matter of the work is somewhat derivative, and the panelist is concerned about how much the repurposing of other artists' photography has been transformed in a way the reflects a unique vision from this artist.
· Panelist was really intrigued by this process of reclamation and portraiture.
· Panelist felt in their modest size, presenting the artwork in a series of multiples in a vitrine would be the best way for the city to experience them.
o Panelist comment: “It is hard to imagine as single individual acquisition, seem like they would work very well as a group much stronger than as single pieces.”
o Panelist comment: “it is hard to see as individual works and possibly stronger as a collective dialogue.”
· Panelists note a lack of clarity around the choice of substrate used across the artist’s works, even though the artist does note it specifically in the statement
· Panelist comment: “Applicant describes why he draws, but not his choice of substrate, the unusual choice of which begs explanation. He also describes where he takes his inspiration, but the subject of these works seems cliched. Perhaps the artist is making a commentary I can't perceive, but without further explanation, I am left cold.”
· Panelist comment: I like this artist's choice of material. Shards of pottery can evoke archeological finds, something found in the rubble of an earthquake, and so on--their brokenness having a melancholy aspect and suggesting the passage of time (everything breaks down eventually). Except these shards are pristinely white, which complicates things. And yet, for me, something is missing from these works that could make them more powerful, with the possible exception of "The Eyes of Frida Kahlo," which is haunting. I can imagine walking along and coming across this fragment in the grass or in a gutter (not a comment on the quality of the art!)--and keeping it forever.
· Panelist comment: “Conceptually interesting, very fine detailed drawings on porcelain, fragment aspect very interesting, but seems like something is missing.”
